Hyosung (America), Inc. et al v. Hantle USA, Inc.

Filing 175

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 174 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Request to Modify Case Management Schedule filed by Hantle USA, Inc., Nautilus Hyosung Inc., Myung Won Suh, Nautilus Hyosung America, Inc., Won Gee Lee, Genmega, Inc.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 5/18/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ADAM A. LEWIS (CA SBN 88736) (alewis@mofo.com) GRANT L. KIM (Cal. Bar No. 114989) (gkim@mofo.com) ALISON M. TUCHER (Cal. Bar No. 171363) (atucher@mofo.com) BARBARA N. BARATH (Cal. Bar No. 268146) (bbarath@mofo.com) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 Attorneys for Plaintiffs NAUTILUS HYOSUNG AMERICA, INC. and NAUTILUS HYOSUNG INC. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 OAKLAND DIVISION 13 14 15 NAUTILUS HYOSUNG AMERICA, INC. and NAUTILUS HYOSUNG INC., Plaintiffs, 16 17 18 19 20 Case No. CV-10-2160-SBA (NJV) STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND ORDER v. Local Rule 7-1(b) HANTLE, INC. (fka Hantle USA, Inc.), GENMEGA, INC. (fka Huin, Inc.), WON GEE LEE, and MYUNG WON SUH, Judge: Hon. Saundra B. Armstrong Defendants. 21 22 WHEREAS, the Court previously granted Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the fact discovery 23 cut-off date until May 18, 2012 and to make related adjustments to other dates, given that the 24 parties have been discussing settlement and agreed to defer discovery so as to avoid incurring 25 litigation costs that would be unnecessary if the case is settled (Dkt. 173); 26 27 WHEREAS, the parties have exchanged several drafts of settlement agreements and believe that they will be able to sign a final settlement agreement within the next several weeks; 28 STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. CV-10-2160-SBA (NJV) sf-3145365 1 1 2 3 WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to continue to defer discovery so as to avoid incurring litigation costs that would be unnecessary if the case is settled; WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that the discovery cut-off and expert disclosure dates 4 should be vacated, so they will not need to engage in discovery while finalizing the settlement; 5 WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that it is premature to set new dates now since this 6 depends on future developments, and there will be no need to set new dates if the settlement is 7 finalized; 8 WHEREAS, the following extensions have been requested and granted in this case: 9  The parties filed a stipulated request to extend the time to file a stipulation or motion 10 regarding the filing of the Second Amended Complaint by one week (Dkt. 49), which 11 was granted by the Court (Dkt. 52); 12  The parties filed a stipulated request to extend the time for Defendants Won Gee Lee 13 and Myung Won Suh to answer the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 67); after 14 Myung Won Suh filed his Answer at the stipulated time, the parties filed a further 15 stipulated request to extend the time for Won Gee Lee to file his answer (Dkt. 76), 16 which the Court granted (Dkt. 77); 17  Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion seeking a five day extension to submit a joint 18 letter brief concerning whether the Answer of Defendant Won Gee Lee should remain 19 under seal in view of the Court’s Order granting in part and denying in part 20 Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order (Dkt. 107), which the Court granted (Dkt. 21 108); 22  23 24 (Dkt. 168), which this Court granted on March 26, 2012 (Dkt. 173)  25 26 27 Plaintiffs filed a motion to modify the Case Management Schedule on March 20, 2012 The Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to extend the deadline for conducting the ENE Session (Dkt. 74, 87); and  The Court granted the parties’ three stipulated requests to extend the deadline for amending pleadings (Dkt. 137, 139, 142). 28 STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. CV-10-2160-SBA (NJV) sf-3145365 2 1 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed by and between the 2 parties, pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b) and subject to the Court’s approval, that the cut-off dates 3 for fact and expert discovery and for expert disclosures are vacated. Within four weeks of the 4 date that this Stipulation is approved by the Court, the parties shall either file a stipulated request 5 to terminate this action in view of a final settlement agreement among them, or shall submit a 6 Joint Status Report advising the Court on proposed adjustments to the case management schedule. 7 In addition to stipulating to the above, I, Grant L. Kim, attest that concurrence in the filing 8 of this Stipulation has been obtained from Matthew H. Poppe, Counsel for Defendants Hantle, 9 Inc., Won Gee Lee, and Myung Won Suh, and from Michael Li-Ming Wong, Counsel for 10 Defendant Genmega, Inc. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Dated: May 17, 2012 ADAM A. LEWIS GRANT L. KIM ALISON M. TUCHER BARBARA N. BARATH MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP By: /s/ Grant L. Kim Grant L. Kim Attorneys for Plaintiffs NAUTILUS HYOSUNG, INC. NAUTILUS HYOSUNG AMERICA, INC. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. CV-10-2160-SBA (NJV) sf-3145365 3 1 Dated: May 17, 2012 2 MICHAEL LI-MING WONG THAD A. DAVIS ROCKY C. TSAI ROPES & GRAY LLP 3 4 By: /s/ Rocky C. Tsai [as authorized] Rocky C. Tsai 5 Attorneys for Defendant GENMEGA, INC. 6 Dated: May 17, 2012 7 8 9 10 MATTHEW H. POPPE KRISTIN S. CORNUELLE SARAH C. MARRIOTT JACOB A. SNOW ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP By: /s/ Sarah C. Marriott_[as authorized] Sarah C. Marriott 11 Attorneys for Defendants HANTLE, INC. [fka Hantle USA, Inc.] WON GEE LEE MYUNG WON SUH 12 13 14 Order 15 16 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated:5/18/12 By:_______________________ U.S. District Court Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. CV-10-2160-SBA (NJV) sf-3145365 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?